List active validation rules — the customer's TRUE enforced set (constitutional + recommended-default metadata on dev tier, all 69 premium rules on pro+). category/preset filter args are accepted but not applied server-side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | No | Filter by preset name | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing a critical behavioral quirk: '`category`/`preset` filter args are accepted but not applied server-side.' It also transparently explains the tier-dependent rule composition, giving the agent important context about what results to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence. Every clause contributes value, from the tier-specific composition to the filter caveat. It is not overly verbose, though splitting the filter note into a separate sentence could improve readability slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers the tool's core purpose, the varying rule sets by tier, and the filter caveat. It does not specify the exact return format, but for a list-type tool this is a minor omission. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Filter by preset name' and 'Filter by category'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explicitly stating that these filter arguments are not applied server-side, which modifies their semantics and prevents misuse beyond what the schema alone communicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List active validation rules.' It further specifies the exact composition of the rule set (constitutional + recommended-default metadata on dev tier, all 69 premium rules on pro+), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_custom_rules or list_presets. The phrase 'TRUE enforced set' reinforces that this is the authoritative source for active rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for what the tool returns but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. It implies that this is the complete enforced rule set, which hints at usage scenarios, but no direct comparison with sibling tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., CRUD for custom rules, mode management, presets, validation). However, get_rules, list_custom_rules, and get_rule_modes could be confused since all return rule-related info, though descriptions differentiate their focus.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_custom_rule, get_audit_log, delete_custom_rule). Even multi-word names like ship_confidence_check maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 range but appropriate for the rule enforcement domain, covering custom rules, presets, modes, audit, and validation. However, three planned-but-unimplemented tools add clutter and could be confusing.
Core operations are present: full CRUD for custom rules, preset application, mode overrides, validation, and audit log. However, three tools are non-functional (NOT_IMPLEMENTED), and there is no way to remove a bypass or manage constitutional rules, leaving some noticeable gaps.